SOURCE: "Pausanius' Attitude to Antiquities," The Annual of the British School at Athens, No. 87, 1992, pp. 387-409.

[In the following essay, Arafat explores the unstated criteria used by Pausanias in determining what to present in his works, including his religious beliefs and preference for ancient works over modern.]

The very fact that the second-century AD traveller Pausanias wrote at such length about the sites and monuments of Greece is itself indicative of his most important attitude towards antiquities.¹ That is, he thought them of sufficient value to be worth recording and thought it worth travelling extensively in mainland Greece over a period of many years to see them for himself. His purpose and approach are markedly different from those of other surviving ancient writers on comparable subjects: our most informative sources such as Pliny, Lucian, Quintilian, and Cicero, were primarily interested neither in art per se nor in travelling for the purpose of seeing art and its context.² In essence they (particularly Pliny) mainly give lists of sculptures and sculptors, based largely on received traditions. Pausanias differs critically from this tradition in three particular respects: first, his concern is with objects in the widest sense, including sculptures, buildings, paintings, and other works. Indeed, it is striking for modern scholars, who inhabit a world where paintings and wooden objects have not survived in quantity, to note that his description of the paintings in the Lesche of the Knidians at Delphi (x. 25. 1-31. 2) takes up nearly one-third of his description of the Apollo sanctuary; while his description of Kypselos' chest in the temple of Hera at Olympia (v. 17. 5-19. 10) is as long as that of the temple of Zeus, including the lavish detailing of Pheidias' cult statue. Secondly, Pausanias is clearly concerned with context—with sites, their history, and their historical topography—as well as with objects; with seeing the totality and juxtaposition of objects at a particular site, rather than simply isolated objects in collections. Thirdly, and centrally to the two aims already outlined, he applies personal observation to the objects he describes and, as will become apparent in this discussion, he regards this autopsy as an essential and integral part of his approach to his chosen task; indeed, on occasion he tells us when he has not seen an object or monument (e.g. i. 38. 2; viii. 10. 2).³ These factors leave no doubt that Pausanias' attitude to antiquities was one of keen interest, and that in this respect he was exceptional.

And yet these three vital differences from the contemporary tradition do not add up to a statement of Pausanias' interests and methods, nor even of the tradition to which he properly belongs. His is in part the role of recorder of art and art history, like Pliny, but also of… a tradition going back at least to Hellenistic times and to writers such as Douris of Samos (c.340-260).⁴ Indeed, in some respects the tradition of peri g t s goes back to Herodotos; and like Herodotos, Pausanias is concerned with what makes one place different from another, and is ready to express his own opinions when he feels it appropriate. His prime interest is in the city together with its sanctuaries,⁵ a very specific type of site at which one would expect to find correspondingly specific types of art: communal symbols of state religion and therefore of state identity. At least part of Pausanias' interest in sanctuaries is therefore derived from his evident concern with what constitutes a city. Hence his interest in symbols of community identity, which inevitably involve antiquity and are concentrated particularly in sanctuaries, the focus of the community par excellence. If the citizens of a town were interested in their community's history, it would be to the sanctuary that they would go to see the manifestations of that history. Antiquity legitimizes a site, and in dealing with sanctuaries Pausanias would inevitably be dealing with antiquities and their significance.

Although I have distanced Pausanias from contemporary writers on art, such as Lucian, this is not to suggest that his is a rare spark of interest in the past in the second century AD. While the narrative of Pausanias is deeply personal, it is also a product of the society into which its author was born and in which he lived. To an educated man of means, antiquities were an integral part of his culture; and to a man of Pausanias' inclination, study of them was an integral part of his education. But this was no historical accident; a convincing explanation for the creation of this cultural climate has been suggested by Spawforth and Walker in two articles on the Panhellenion, the organization of cities founded by Hadrian in AD 131-2.⁶ As they point out, Hadrian had a considerable impact on Greece as a whole,⁷ shown not least by Pausanias' express statement that the Megarians 'were the only Greek people whom even the emperor Hadrian could not make thrive' (i. 36. 3). The founding of the Panhellenion encouraged 'a contemporary perception of the Greek past and the Roman present as complementary rather than mutually exclusive'.⁸ Given this background, Pausanias' style of writing, more discursive than that of other sources, is to be expected. So, too, is his great interest in antiquities, since in forging those connections between 'the Greek past and the Roman present' it was essential that he considered the development of the artistic and cultural manifestations of that Greek past. The Panhellenion stimulated a particular interest in the past of mainland Greece among the educated class of Asia Minor.⁹ Spawforth and Walker refer to this phenomenon as 'Greek cultural archaism', and observe that 'stimulated by Hadrianic policies, recollection of the past should be viewed as a dynamic element in Greek urban life under the Antonines'.¹⁰

The role … was, then, more natural for Pausanias as a man of his era than that of simple recorder; and yet the subject of his attitude to antiquities is one with greater complexities and subtleties than are accounted for simply by the historical context into which he was born. Pollitt has observed that Pausanias 'almost never expressed personal preferences or values beyond pointing out that certain work was "worth seeing" '.¹¹ Similarly Habicht, although he argues that Pausanias has been unjustly neglected,¹² gives little space to consideration of the shades of presentation reflected in Pausanias' writings; that is, to how his narrative reflects differing attitudes to specific works and types of works. In contrast, I suggest that Pausanias had strong personal preferences and values in his attitudes to the objects and sites he describes, and that they are reflected in the shades of presentation in his narrative. It is those attitudes that I hope to define more closely in this article.

There are some points which will be immediately apparent to any reader of Pausanias. His selectivity is perhaps the most striking. Pollitt is right to say that he occasionally reserved the epithet 'worth seeing' (theas axios) for a particular artefact or site.¹³ But the infrequency of his use of this epithet in itself shows that being 'worth seeing' was far from being the decisive criterion in his selection of objects to record. He reminds us on occasion that he is choosing which works to present and which to omit, a practical step in the description of crowded sites.¹⁴ The works he omits are those he considers less special. Of his omissions at Delphi he says, 'as to the athletes and musical competitors who have attracted no notice from the majority of mankind, I hold them hardly worthy of attention' (x. 9. 2). The obscurity of the musicians is one matter, but a wider reason may lie behind his next phrase: 'the athletes who have made themselves a name have already been set forth by me in my account of Elis'. There is implicit here a sense of appropriateness, a sense that Olympia was the home of Greek athletics, the fitting place to describe athletes' statues; Delphi, although it was the site of the Pythian games, held primacy in its oracle, not athletics. In short, Pausanias is trying to filter out what would be standard at a particular site, as opposed to what would be. special to it and therefore worthy of description.

Given that Pausanias is of necessity selective in his descriptions, does the antiquity of an object play any part in his selectivity? There are no places in the text where he says it does; but it is tempting to wonder whether modernity was a negative factor. His description of Olympia is exceptionally extensive and accurate, as any visitor to Olympia can still discover (and as Pausanias himself proudly claims, v. 25. 1), yet there is no place in his narrative for the nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus, recently completed and hardly inconspicuous. Various reasons have been advanced for this striking omission,¹⁵ but it is possible that it was, at least in part, the very modernity of the nymphaeum that caused him to omit it. If so, it would not be the first example of a dislike of contemporary art; Plato reserved especial venom for the artistic trends of his own time,¹⁶ and Vitruvius railed most vehemently against the style of painting of his day.¹⁷ While it would be rash to compare too closely three writers so far separated in time and purpose, an apparent disdain for works of their own period does seem to be a unifying factor. Another, complementary, reason for the omission of the nymphaeum may be advanced: while it is a spectacular gift, it is above all a practical one, of little importance in determining what the sanctuary is really about or in promoting the sanctity of the sanctuary. While an ancient building with a practical purpose can be seen as hallowed by time and usage, a modern building of similar purpose has no tradition to fall back on, and is more likely to be treated as an intruder among the established monuments than as worthy of instant veneration.¹⁸ A building financed and dedicated by a private individual to the memory of his wife ran the risk of being seen as an expression less of veneration than of impiety, in such a context.

In the last century H. Stuart-Jones observed, 'it is specially noticeable that the objects of interest which he [Pausanias] describes belong either to the period previous to 150 BC or to his own time'.¹⁹ If this is so (and by no means all the objects Pausanias mentions are readily datable), it is interesting to compare the well-known comment of Pliny, speaking of 295-2 BC: 'cessavit deinde ars, ac rursus Olympiade CLVI revixit' (NH xxxiv. 52).²⁰ Since the 156th Olympiad dates to 156-3, Pliny's date for the revival of art coincides almost exactly with Pausanias' apparent date for the suspension of art worth discussing. This seeming contradiction suggests that there was, in fact, nothing objectively significant about the date of c.150 BC. It is possible, though not demonstrable, that the sites of mainland Greece received few dedications in the period c.295-150. Pliny's statement can perhaps be explained by suggesting that he (or his sources) saw a lack of specific named sculptors, lists of whom, along with their works, is the essence of his chapters. But Pausanias' concern was far wider, and since sites continued to be built on and sculptures, paintings, and lesser works continued to be produced, his apparent omission of works of this period cannot be explained on the grounds that it arises naturally from the programme of his work.

We are back to Pausanias' opinion of modernity. That he was aware of such modernity is clear from the fact that, as Habicht notes,²¹ he uses the expression 'in my [or 'our'] own time' on 144 occasions. Habicht observes, however, that there are only seven occasions on which he uses the phrase in connection with artefacts in datable contexts. The following is based on Habicht's list, with additional comments.

(1), (2) vii. 5. 4: 'in my day the Smyrnaians had a sanctuary of Asklepios built'. This has been variously dated between c. 151 and c. 166.²² The same building is also referred to at ii. 26. 9, where Pausanias says, 'in our time the sanctuary of Asklepios beside the sea at Smyrna was founded from the one at Pergamon'. Both of these are passing references with no attempt at description.

(3) vii. 20. 6 refers to the Odeion of Herodes Atticus, but in the context of a description of Patras. Pausanias goes on to say, 'in my book on Attica this Odeion is not mentioned because my description of Athens was finished before Herodes began to build the hall'. It is of little significance that in this passage he simply mentions it with no detail.

(4) v. 21. 15 mentions two statues of AD 125. These are mentioned in the context of the row of Zanes at Olympia, since they are statues of athletes who had been fined for cheating. Again, there is no description or discussion of them as statues.

(5) viii. 10. 2 notes Hadrian's new sanctuary of Poseidon Hippios near Mantinea of AD 117-38. This is mentioned largely to point a contrast with the original sanctuary, built by the very early artists Trophonios and Agamedes.²³

(6) ii. 1.7 mentions Herodes Atticus' dedication in the temple of Poseidon at the Isthmus of a chryselephantine group of Poseidon, Amphitrite, Palaimon, Tritons, horses, dolphins et al. This is the only one of these examples to contain a significant element of description.

(7) ii. 27. 6-7 refers to the buildings erected by the Roman senator Antoninus²⁴ in the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros: a bath, a sanctuary, and a temple. There is no comment on the buildings, just a brief statement of their existence.

With the exception of the description of the dedications of Herodes Atticus at Isthmia, in all these cases Pausanias simply mentions the presence of these buildings or statues, sometimes using them to point a contrast. In short, they arise as a result of the discussion of other buildings or sculptures, rather than because of their own virtues or intrinsic interest. Many objects are just mentioned in the course of the narrative, without any discussion, but no other modern objects are discussed.

It may be concluded from this that Pausanias' attitude to modern objects and buildings betrays a comparative disdain for contemporary art. In detailing Pausanias' preference for the past, Habicht also notes the paucity of mentions of contemporary or recent writers, and his evident admiration for sculptors of the earlier period.²⁵ But while this, like the discussion of the previous paragraph, documents this preference of Pausanias, it does not account for it. Although he does not make the reasons for his apparent preference explicit, it may reflect a belief that antiquity legitimizes a site and a cult and gives something more than general appropriateness. This necessarily affects his view of modernity, and here the discussion of the Nymphaeum at Olympia is again pertinent. While part of Pausanias' concern is with modernity in the sense of physical newness, he also has a sense of different perceptions of how the art relates to the site at which it is found. In that light, the appropriateness of a monument to a site is an important factor; all the more so in the case of a sanctuary where older monuments are more naturally in place. Appropriateness, therefore, is an important factor in Pausanias' selectivity.

Although Pausanias' primary concern is with objects of past ages, he is also concerned with those past ages themselves. It will be argued in what follows that this is a central motivation behind his descriptive techniques. It is clear that he does not simply record manifestations of the past, but thinks about the past. He says, for example, that he has 'investigated very carefully the dates of Hesiod and Homer' (ix. 30. 1). Such an interest in the past is apparent too in his treatment of objects, most immediately in his practice of referring to objects as 'ancient' (archaios or palaios) or 'very ancient' (archaiotatos or palaiotatos). In attempting to assess how this reflects his attitude to those antiquities he details, it is of central importance to ask two basic questions: first, what criteria does Pausanias use to classify something as 'ancient' or 'very ancient'; and, secondly, how far does he distinguish phases under the overall heading of 'the past'?

Criteria

Technique

It is clear from many references that Pausanias was interested in technique and the development of technical skills. In i. 26. 7 he refers to Kallimachos as one who 'though inferior to the best artists in the actual practice of his art (techn), so far surpassed them all in ingenuity that he was the first to bore holes in stones'. While the literal truth of this cannot be sustained,²⁶ it does bear witness to a tradition about the past which can be seen to be manifest in several other areas of Greek and Roman life. This is the desire for a pr tos heuret s, or first founder, a name to which inventions and new developments can be attributed.²⁷ The clearest example in the context of art is the name of Hippodamos, credited in our sources with the invention of axial town planning.²⁸ The tradition extends also to literature, its most notable appearance being as the raison d'etre of Vergil's Aeneid. While the veracity of the tradition concerning Kallimachos must be seriously doubted, the fact that Pausanias mentions such a story is itself sufficient to indicate that both tradition and Pausanias saw such an advance in the technical aspects of an art (in this case, gem-cutting) as worthy of note.

A similar case arises from Pausanias' description of Delphi, where he observes that 'of the offerings sent by the kings of Lydia nothing now remains except the iron stand of Alyattes' bowl. This stand is a work of Glaukos the Chian, who invented the welding of iron' (x. 16. 1). This may be derived from Herodotos (i. 25), although it is clear that Pausanias saw the stand for himself, in a reduced form since Herodotos' day when it also had a silver bowl. The stress on the link with a famous man gives additional sanctity to the particular piece, or the particular invention. Again, the invention of such a longestablished technique is unlikely to be accurately attributable, but there is a perceived necessity for a specific named inventor. Pausanias makes these references with apparent admiration, and names the individuals concerned as a means of giving them what he sees as their due credit. This is particularly apparent in the reference to Kallimachos, but may be inferred in the second example from his belief, expressed elsewhere, that 'to make images (agalmata) out of iron is a most difficult and laborious process' (x. 18. 6).

These examples make the important point that along with Pausanias' interest in skill and technique comes an interest in the development of that technique, and it is from the interest in that development that many of his comments on antiquities arise. It is perhaps here that he differs from writers like Pliny, whose work contains more on technique. Pausanias is not simply concerned with technique per se, but with technique as an indication of relative date. While the two examples cited above indicate Pausanias' interest in antiquity because they concentrate on the first practitioner of a skill, they say nothing of the nature or depth of that skill. But it is clear from many examples that Pausanias saw the development of skill as indicative of the chronological development of an art. It appears that technique was felt by Pausanias to be the most obvious way of distinguishing the ancient from the less ancient and the modern.

Pausanias explicitly cites technical simplicity as a characteristic of a statue in his discussion of the contents of the temple of Hera at Olympia: 'in Hera's temple there is a statue²⁹ of Zeus, and Hera's statue (agalma) is seated on a throne … these are works of a simple art (hapla)' (v. 17. 1, trans. Levi (Penguin edn)).³⁰ He then gives a list of other works in the cella of the temple, and concludes by saying, 'I cannot tell who made these images, but they seem to me to be extremely ancient' (v. 17. 3; es ta malista archaia). Although it is not explicitly stated, this may reasonably be taken to confirm that Pausanias saw simplicity as a hallmark of antiquity.³¹ The same unstated assumption almost certainly motivated his ascription of a statue at Erythrai in Asia Minor: 'from various indications I judged the image (agalma) to be a work of Endoios, particularly from an inspection of the workmanship' (vii. 5. 9).

The notion of technical simplicity as a hallmark of the most ancient works is evident from, for example, this comment on a. statue from the Akropolis of Athens: 'he who prefers the products of art (techn) to mere antiquity (archaiot s) should observe the following: there is a man wearing a helmet, a work of Kleoitas, who has inwrought the man's nails of silver' (i. 24. 3). The implication is not only that techn was lacking in archaia, but that it consists (at least here) in fine details, such as the fingernails being of a different material. Pausanias' enthusiasm for this particular statue's technical accomplishment may have been coloured by his belief that the same Kleoitas was responsible for the invention of the starting mechanism for the horseraces at Olympia (vi. 20. 14). With the example of Pausanias' discussion of Kleoitas' helmeted man before us, it can more readily be understood that when Pausanias says elsewhere that an agalma 'is plainly older, and ruder in style, than the image of Athena at Amphissa' (x. 38. 7; archaioteron kai argoteron t n techn n), he intends a link to be made between the antiquity of the statue and its technique. The implication is that the technique is characterized by simplicity; but Pausanias does not state this explicitly, taking it for granted, apparently expecting his audience to think the same way. We must remember this in considering other occasions on which he speaks of technique. Although the use of technical backwardness (implied in the word argoteron in the passage quoted above (x. 38. 7), but never defined)³² as the sole criterion for dating is a misjudgement, we must ask exactly how much of a misjudgement it is for each style or object. This is important, because we use precisely this same idea in creating our own typologies of artefacts; for this reason, such an approach strikes a familiar chord with us.

Material

It is similarly probable that simplicity of style lies behind Pausanias' comment on the shrine of Herakles at Hyettos in Boiotia: '[Herakles] is represented, not by an artificial image (agalma), but in the ancient fashion by an unwrought stone' (ix. 24. 3; lithos argos). Similarly, at Thespiai there was 'a very ancient image of [Eros], an unwrought stone' (ix. 27. 1; argos lithos). Although we can again only draw inferences, it is likely that Pausanias means that the stone is aniconic, to him a sign of an extremely early date. It is also just possible that he is alluding to the chronological development of Greek sculpture, from soft limestone to harder stones;³³ he would certainly have been aware of it, and would have seen many examples of both. There are several occasions on which he specifies that a statue is of stone, and of a particular type, whether Parian or Pentelic,³⁴ white or black.³⁵ His interest in stone is not confined to that used for statuary; in describing the local stone at Megara, he says that it 'is the only part of Greece where this mussel-stone is found, and many buildings in the city are made of it. It is very white and softer than other stone, and there are sea-mussels all through it' (i. 44. 9; lithos).³⁶ Again, 'at Panopeus there is beside the road a small building of unburnt brick' (x. 4. 3); a similar phrase is used of the Philippeion at Olympia, which he thought was 'made of burnt bricks' (v. 20. 5).³⁷ Pausanias' careful distinguishing of types of stone may also be a means of making clear the contrast between earlier building techniques and those of contemporary Roman practice.

Among other materials, Pausanias usually specifies if a statue is of gold and ivory,³⁸ and he also details several acroliths.³⁹ So, too, on occasion he mentions more unusual material, such as the 'image (agalma) of Dionysos made of gypsum and painted' at Kreusis (ix. 32. 1), or the small silver agalmata in the Tholos in the Agora of Athens (i. 5. 1), or a gold agalma from Prokonnesos with a face made of hippopotamus teeth (viii. 46. 4).

Thus Pausanias' interest in the material of which the objects and buildings were made was considerable. But a particular interest is reserved for wooden statues. These are important partly because our own lack of wooden artefacts leaves us more than usually indebted to him (and to the other ancient sources), and partly because it is clear that in his mind there was a very real connection between wood and antiquity. The association is clear from his descriptions of objects other than statues; for example, in the description of the temple of Hera at Olympia, in the opisthodomos of which he saw the one remaining wooden column, a survival from the earliest building phase of the temple and the only one which had not yet been replaced in stone (v. 16. 1).⁴⁰

Sometimes Pausanias makes a simple reference to wooden statues.⁴¹ On other occasions he refers to them in contexts which make it clear, or at least suggest, that he sees their antiquity as deriving at least in part from the fact of their being wooden. The key word in Pausanias' usage is xoanon.… 'Pausanias does not say that all xoana are old, but rather that in early times all statuary was made in wood.⁴³ There is much evidence in Pausanias to bear this out (there is, in fact, no case where he uses xoanon of a statue which is provably not wooden),⁴⁴ and to illustrate further his view of antiquity by demonstrating some of the contexts in which he uses the word. For example, in his description of Argos he mentions a temple of Wolf Apollo, and explains that 'the temple and the xoanon were dedicated by Danaos; for I am persuaded that in those days [tote] they were all xoana, especially the Egyptian ones' (ii. 19. 3). With the mention of Danaos we are in the world of legendary figures, and there is also evident an all-embracing approach to 'the past'.⁴⁵ How these factors relate to Pausanias' view of the past is discussed below; what is important to note here is the association of a particular medium—wood—with that past. This is a, if not the, major reason for the use of wood in sanctuaries, which were areas of particular reverence and which, as noted above (p. 388), were the main concern of Pausanias. To that extent, we must be wary of circularity of argument, since some objects (wooden ones above all) owed their presence in the sanctuary to their being perceived as antique, and are then perceived as antique because they are in the sanctuary. This process of thought and selection would contribute to the lack of interest shown by Pausanias in modern objects. In so far as he illustrates that the antiquity of wood governs its use at sanctuaries, Pausanias is only reflecting the standard view.

Although the association of wood with antiquity is not always explicit, it is a reasonable inference that it lies behind most, if not all, of the references to wooden statues.⁴⁶ Sometimes this association is made by linking the wooden statue with a legendary figure, as in the case of Danaos, or when Pausanias mentions 'a wooden Hermes, said to be an offering of Kekrops' in the shrine of Athena Polias on the Akropolis of Athens (i. 27. I). Kekrops was one of the ten tribal heroes of Athens,⁴⁷ and a key figure in the acquisition by Athena of the Akropolis in the face of opposition from Poseidon.⁴⁸

The statue is thus associated with one of the very earliest phases of Athenian history. The fact that it is wooden reinforces its antiquity (a comparable example is the xoanon made by Polyidos for the sanctuary of Dionysos at Megara (i. 43. 5); p. 402 below). In his description of the Argive Heraion, Pausanias first mentions two gold and ivory statues, then 'an ancient image (agalma) of Hera' (ii. 17. 5) of unspecified material (not gold and ivory, as it is distinguished from the other two statues and is set on a pillar). The vagueness of the phrase is to an extent qualified by what follows: 'her most ancient image (archaiotaton; sc. agalma) is made of the wood of the wild pear-tree; it was dedicated in Tiryns by Peirasos son of Argos; and when the Argives destroyed Tiryns they brought the agalma to the Heraion. It is a small seated agalma: I saw it myself'.⁴⁹ Again, an extant statue is associated with a legendary figure; in this case, the son of the eponymous founder of Argos. This particular example is given spice by Pausanias' expressed belief that 'of all the Greeks it is the Argives who most dispute the claim of the Athenians to antiquity (archaiot s) and to the possession of gifts of the gods' (i. 14. 2).⁵⁰

Naturally, the first artists made wooden statues, such as that of Herakles from the sanctuary of Athena Chalinites at Corinth by Daidalos, traditionally the first artist (ii. 4. 5; Daidalos is discussed below, pp. 403-5). Indeed, it is in speaking of Daidalos that Pausanias twice explicitly connects wooden statues with antiquity. First, he says that 'the residence of Daidalos in Knossos, at the court of Minos, conferred on the Cretans for a long time a reputation for the making of xoana' (viii. 53. 8). The link of Daidalos with Crete through King Minos is narrated by several authors, including Pausanias.⁵¹ This link in itself suggests great antiquity, as is evident from other mentions of Crete, as at Megara, where 'the circuit of the ancient wall had been pulled down by the Cretans' (i. 41. 6). Secondly, writing of a festival held at Plataia, Pausanias says 'they celebrate a festival called Daidala because people long ago called xoana daidala' (ix. 3. 2); he adds his own view on statuary before Daidalos' day by saying, 'I believe that they called them so even before Daidalos … was born … and I think that Daidalos was a surname subsequently given to him from the daidala, and not a name bestowed on him at birth'. Long before Pausanias, the name Daidalos had come to mean 'cleverly wrought', and the subsequent use of the name has an immediate association of quality and antiquity.

Later generations of artists also made wooden statues. Dipoinos and Skyllis, traditionally pupils (or even sons) of Daidalos, made ebony statues ('with a little ivory') for the shrine of the Dioskouroi at Argos (ii. 22. 6; for Dipoinis and Skyllis, see pp. 404-5 below). The ascription of wooden statues to later generations of artists raises the question of how late Pausanias thought wood was used for statuary, an issue with obvious relevance to the apparent association of wood with antiquity.

Named artists of a period which is identifiable precisely by us also made wooden statues, but it is important to remember that they were in all probability classed as 'ancient' by Pausanias. Examples include one at Aigina: 'the xoanon is a work by Myron' (ii. 30. 2).⁵² Again, at Troizen, the shrine of Athena Sthenis: 'the xoanon of the goddess is by Kallon of Aigina' (ii. 32. 5). The epigraphic interpretation of the inscription naming Kallon on the base of another statue gives a date of c.500. Although many works cannot be precisely dated, it appears that the word archaios is not used of any work later than, approximately, the early fifth century. This is noted by Pollitt⁵³ in his discussion of the word; but while he is right to say that the word 'could be used to describe works of art dating from anywhere between the remote, legendary past and the Early Classical period', this should not, I suggest, be taken to mean that Pausanias did not attempt to explore the divisions within that period.

Attributes

Another criterion used by Pausanias in attempting to date an object is the attributes it may have. For example, he describes a statue by Kleon of Sikyon of the athlete Hysmon of Elis at Olympia as having 'ancient (archaioi) jumping-weights' (vi. 3. 10). He does not give the date of the statue, but he mentions the artist elsewhere in a fourth-century context (v. 17. 3; 21. 3).⁵⁴ However, this leaves open the question of what archaioi means; clearly its meaning depends on whether the weights looked archaioi in the second century AD or in the fourth century BC. Pausanias does not make this clear, and we can but speculate. However, this example does illustrate one possible complicating factor which is pertinent here, namely, archaizing, a phenomenon long acknowledged by modern scholars, although they may disagree as to how to recognize it or whether specific pieces exhibit it.⁵⁵ Archaizing is perhaps relevant to Pausanias' description of the statue of Hysmon,⁵⁶ and also to his description of another athlete statue at Olympia, that of Damaretos who won in the 65th Olympiad (i.e. in 516 BC): 'his statue (andrias; cf. n. 61) has not only a shield, as the armed runners still have, but also a helmet on his head and greaves on his legs. In course of time the wearing of helmet and greaves in the race was abolished both by the Eleans and by the rest of the Greeks' (vi. 10. 4). Although Pausanias names the sculptors of the statues of his father and grandfather who are part of the same group, he gives no hint of the date of the sculptures. It may well be legitimate to assume that the statue would date from soon after the victory; but this is of limited consequence for present purposes. The important point is that Pausanias recognizes that the 'attributes' of the athlete mark the statue as being of a certain period. In doing so, he is using the visual evidence of the details of the statue, in conjunction with the evidence of the inscription (which, in fact, pertains to the statues of the father and grandfather). What makes these examples significant is that Pausanias is remarking on a juxtaposition of old and new elements, further refining his dating criteria.⁵⁷ Finally, it is relevant that attributes such as jumping weights and shields would be among those more readily accessible to the average visitor to the sanctuary, exhibiting objective and widely-known criteria for dating, and that they would not have the mystique of less immediately comprehensible works.

Terminology

Having considered Pausanias' main criteria for singling out a sculpture as 'ancient', the question arises of what he means by 'ancient', or 'very ancient'. He has a sense of the complexities of dating, exemplified by his study of the dates of Homer and Hesiod (p. 391 above). He also has a sense of prehistory, revealed by his statement, apropos of the legendary expedition of the Seven against Thebes, that it was 'the most memorable of all the wars carried on by Greeks against Greeks in what they call the historical age' (ix. 9. 1). His sense of prehistory is shared by Herodotos, who refers to 'what is called the historical age' (iii. 122), and by Thucydides, who asks how far we can go back in seeking the causes of events (above all, present events) and, although he goes back a long way, confesses 'I have found it impossible, because of its remoteness in time, to acquire a really precise knowledge of the distant past or even of the history preceding our own period' (i. 1; trans. R. Warner, Penguin edn). Because Thucydides lacked written accounts, not only was the evidence available to him considerably diminished, but he also lacked an absolute chronological standard. Under such circumstances, perceptions of what constitutes 'the past' are likely to vary more according to context. Indeed, perceptions of the past are necessarily different in societies without widespread literacy; it is easy to overestimate the extent of literacy, but important not to, since the oral tradition operates within a different understanding of the past.⁵⁸ The examples cited show a sense—although not an explicit statement—of two categories of the past: a recorded past (the 'historical age'), and a past before that (the 'heroic age'). The very fact that, in the passage just cited, Pausanias uses the phrase 'as they call it' (much as Herodotos before him had used the phrase 'what is called') shows that he, like Herodotos, was not content to accept popular tradition, but was concerned to examine the nature of prehistory and the 'heroic age'.

For Pausanias, the 'heroic age' is characterized by a sense of something different; a sense that, as noted above, things were not done in the same way and, for him, were not made in the same way.

I have discussed in what ways Pausanias saw objects as made differently; I now discuss in what other ways he thought art differed in the 'heroic age'. One theme which runs through much Greek writing, and on into Roman, is that of the Golden Age when men were stronger and life was simpler. Elements of this are seen in literature, beginning with Homer (e.g. in the descriptions of the cup of Nestor, ni. xi. 632-7; cf. i. 260-8; or of Odysseus' bow that only he could string, Od. xxi). This theme is apparent in Pausanias' work also, and is an integral part of the theme under discussion. The size of the wall blocks at Tiryns is characterized as Cyclopean: 'each stone so large that a pair of mules could not even stir the smallest of them' (ii. 25. 8). Interestingly, Pausanias on one occasion combines this sense of a past, when superhuman deeds such as those of Odysseus or the Cyclopes were common, with his interest in statuary, specifically statuary that was (in his terms) ancient. In his description of Phokis he says, 'in the territory of Magnesia, on the river Lethaios, there is a place called Hylai, where is a grotto consecrated to Apollo. There is nothing very wonderful in the size of the grotto, but the image (agalma) of Apollo is very old (ta malista archaion) and it imparts strength equal to any labour. Men sacred to the god leap down precipices and high rocks, tear exceedingly lofty trees from their roots, and walk with their burdens along the narrowest footpaths' (x. 32. 6).

Although the theme of supernatural strength is associated with the 'heroic age', athletic bombast lies behind its appearance in an inscription on a stone found at Olympia weighing over 140 kg, which one Bybon claims to have thrown over his head with one hand.⁵⁹ This dates from the early Archaic period, which to us is significantly later than the 'heroic age' associated in our minds with the world before, and reflected in, Homer. However, it will become clear, from further consideration of Pausanias' use of the words 'ancient' and 'very ancient', that for him the definition of 'ancient' would not have been so refined as to distinguish between the 'heroic age' and the seventh or sixth century. In this context, athletics constituted the main link with heroism, exemplified by Herakles himself, the founder of the Olympic games who was responsible for laying out the Altis (v. 7. 4). There is in athletics a 'heroic dimension' which is constantly present and can be tapped into, so that one can link oneself to the heroic past by one's behaviour.

As noted, the quote from Herodotos given above indicates a sense of prehistory, but it is linked to the present by means of such events as the Trojan war, which are seen as direct predecessors of the current wars. For Herodotos, history begins with Kroisos, c.560 BC (i. 6). Similarly, Thucydides links the past and present by using the Trojan war as a standard by which to judge the Peloponnesian war (i. 10). In the same way, Pausanias shows an awareness of the past (by his time, of course, a much longer past than that conceived of by Herodotos some six hundred years earlier), but at the same time he is aware of his limitations in defining that past, and assigning particular pieces to it, in anything other than the most general way. A rare example of his linking a sculptor with an historical event occurs in a passage about Olympia, where he is discussing a statue of Herakles and an Amazon made by one Aristokles of Kydonia and dedicated by Euagoras of Zankle: 'Aristokles may be reckoned among the most ancient sculptors: his exact date cannot be given, but clearly he lived before Zankle got its present name of Messene' (v. 25. 11). This is a reasonable inference, not from the style or workmanship of the statue, but from the wording of the dedicatory inscription, which referred to the artist as being from Zankle rather than Messene. Herodotos (vii. 164) and Thucydides (vi. 4) date the change of name to 494, although whether or not Pausanias was aware of this date is not made clear. However, he places Aristokles before then, with no attempt at closer dating; this shows him trying to narrow down the date, almost apologetic for not being able to do so, but still finding the past (in this case, the period before the change of name) an indivisible and unfathomable unity.

On a few occasions Pausanias makes explicit his reasons for believing that a particular statue is of some antiquity. For example, in his description of Arkadia he says, 'in the market place at Phigaleia there is a statue (andrias) of Arrachion the pankratiast. The statue is archaic (archaios), especially in its attitude, for the feet are not much separated, and the arms hang down by the side to the hips' (viii. 40. 1). This is clearly a description of a kouros, one of the earliest forms of stone statue, but one which continues into the early fifth century.⁶⁰ In this particular case, there is additional evidence in that Arrachion is known from the Olympic victor-lists, where his victory is dated to 564, suggesting a contemporary date for the statue. Unfortunately, surviving kouroi from Phigaleia cannot be firmly associated with this one.⁶¹ This example illustrates that, as Frazer's translation 'archaic' suggests and as Pollitt⁶² points out, 'like our word Archaic, archaios connoted not only the date of a work of art but also its style'.

On other occasions, Pausanias expresses interest in the attribution of a work to a particular sculptor. In a passage concerned with two statues, at Branchidai and at Thebes, he says, 'whoever has seen one of these two images (agalmata), and learned the artist's name, needs no great sagacity to perceive when he sees the other, that it too is a work of Kanachos' (ix. 10. 2). Again, in describing dedications of the Akragantines at Olympia, he says, 'I guessed that they were works of Kalamis', and then adds 'and the tradition agreed with my guess' (v. 25. 5). The implication of this passage is that he came to his own stylistic judgement and made his own attribution. Although Pausanias' origins and the connoisseurship of his day must have had a considerable effect on his thoughts, it is interesting that he knows of 'those who have made a special study of the history of the sculptors' (v. 20. 2). These may be contemporary, or of previous generations, or both. They would have had the advantage of access not only to more originals, but also to written works such as Polykleitos' canon.⁶³ By Pausanias' time, the practice of collecting Greek sculptures and making copies of those one could not collect was well established.⁶⁴ It is by such means that someone of his date would have become acquainted with Greek sculptors in the sort of detail that is evident from his discussion, in the course of which the students of 'the history of the sculptors' are mentioned (v. 20. 1-2), and where the main issue is whether Kolotes was from Herakleia or Paros. Pausanias was, of course, an inveterate traveller, as the very writing of his book shows. His personal acquaintance with the sites and monuments he describes is beyond dispute, and will have been a critical factor in enabling him to make the stylistic judgement necessary to ascribe a statue to a specific, named sculptor.

Another example of Pausanias' own judgement of a statue, in this case one he classes as archaios, occurs in his description of Aigeira: 'there is an archaion xoanon there … none of the natives could tell the sculptor's name; but anyone who has seen the Herakles at Sikyon would infer that the Apollo at Aigeira is a work of the same artist, Laphaes of Phlious' (vii. 26. 6). In contrast to the previous example, this shows Pausanias consulting local opinion (and then making up his own mind). Laphaes also occurs in Pausanias' description of Corinth, where there was a xoanon archaion by him (ii. 10. 1).

What we have, then, is an awareness of the past largely in very specific terms, such as of a named sculptor, or an established style that can be associated with a named sculptor. Pliny's practice of dating sculptors by Olympiads indicates a similar degree of confidence in dating. With this background, the phraseology used by Pausanias in assessing antiquity can be examined more closely.

At the simplest level, antiquity is a matter of what is older. In talking of Megara, Pausanias cites a statue of Aphrodite Praxis, saying it is 'the oldest (archaiotaton) in the temple' (i. 43. 6). The other statues in the shrine are by several famous fourth-century sculptors; but this gives us only the most general chronological framework. Further stages back in Pausanias' conception of the structure of the past are revealed by some of his ascriptions of works to ancient figures. Often these ascriptions are marked by a note of doubt: this doubt is less that of the well-educated, widely-travelled, second-century AD traveller, than that of a man exercising that selectivity which was one of his most noticeable characteristics. An example of a comparable ascription he did believe in shows this selectivity working to discriminate between a group of objects supposed to be of the same origin (ix. 40. 6-41. 1):

the god whom the Chaironeans honour most is the sceptre which Homer says Hephaistos made for Zeus, and Zeus gave Hermes; and Hermes to Pelops, and Pelops bequeathed to Atreus; and Atreus to Thyestes, from whom Agamemnon had it… of all the objects which poets have declared and obsequious public opinion has believed to be works of Hephaistos, none is genuine save the sceptre of Agamemnon.

In the course of this narrative, Pausanias details two other objects reputed to be by Hephaistos—a bronze urn at Patara, and a chest in Patrai—but he denies the authenticity of both; his grounds for doing so are that the urn is made in a technique which was invented later, by the Samian artists Theodoros and Rhoikos (further, p. 405 below), and that the chest is never put on show. This reinforces two important points already made. The rejection of the urn shows how Pausanias saw technique as a chronological marker; and the chest shows how much store he set by autopsy of an object. The failure to display the chest would also strike Pausanias as suspicious, because a city would be expected to put on show something as old as it was claimed to be; there was something suspect in keeping it hidden. This reinforces the point made above (pp. 389, 391), that the idea of appropriateness was an important one for Pausanias, and for the display of objects.

This passage shows how Pausanias expresses belief in the staff as an authentic work of Hephaistos; and it also shows that he is aware of the dangers of such attribution, and does not agree with it unthinkingly. But a further point must be extracted from this example, one that is not dependent on Pausanias' opinion of whether a specific object is authentic: he has no doubt that the gods made works, and that such works can survive to his day. Perhaps it is exaggeration to say 'the gods', since Pausanias is here dealing with the patron god of craftsmen; but the fact of belief in the manufacture of objects by a god is established nevertheless. This is a vital point, since it is an unstated contributory factor to his broad view of the past. The past is continuous, but there are certain features of the past (such as heroes or great leaders) which are more relevant to particular aspects of present circumstances.

For the modern commentator, the mythical or legendary figures of such works as those of Homer or the tragedians may be accounted younger contemporaries of the gods; they people that world of the period before history, from which Greek art and literature from the early Archaic period onwards drew such inspiration. In Pausanias' writings, there appears to be no explicit distinction between the generation of the gods and that of the heroes. For example, at Megara he talks of Demeter's hall which 'they say that Kar built when he was king' (i. 40. 5). Similarly, also at Megara, he details several levels of antiquity: of the memorial over the grave of Koroibos he says, 'these are the most ancient Greek images in stone (agalmata palaiotata) that I have seen' (i. 43. 7). As noted (p. 396), at Megara 'the circuit of the ancient wall had been pulled down by the Cretans' (i. 41. 4), and Alkathous built shrines there. The association of particular buildings or objects with legendary or mythical individuals is in evidence elsewhere (see the example of Danaos cited above, p. 395). In Sparta, 'Odysseus is said to have set up tAthena's] image (agalma) and named her Goddess of Paths after he had vanquished the wooers of Penelope in the race' (iii. 12. 4); and at Thebes, 'they say that the image (agalma) [of Athena] was set up by Kadmos' (ix. 12. 2).

While still within the legendary or mythical framework, different buildings or monuments are ascribed to different phases of that period. At Megara, 'Telamon, son of Aiakos, married Periboia daughter of Alkathous. I apprehend, therefore, that Ajax, having succeeded Alkathous in the kingdom, made the image (agalma) of Athena' (i. 42. 4; the statue was an acrolith of gilded wood and ivory). Again at Megara:

beside the entrance to the sanctuary of Dionysos is the grave of Astykrateia and Manto. They were daughters of Polyidos, the great-grandson of Melampous, who came to Megara to purify Alkathous after the murder of his son Kallipolis. Polyidos built the sanctuary to Dionysos and dedicated a xoanon, which in our time is hidden except the face, the only visible part of it
(i. 43. 5; cf. pp. 395-6 above).

I have quoted these examples at some length because they illustrate several important points. Not only is Pausanias dealing with legendary figures—and indeed, in the case of the wall at Megara, with the Cretans who are before any of them—but he is dealing with several generations of them. It is clear on many occasions that his best way of establishing a sequence is through genealogy, whether lineal or artistic (the technique previously employed apropos of art by Pliny, who also used Olympiads to structure his narrative). In other words, he is more often attempting to establish a relative chronology than an absolute chronology. This approach has a long and distinguished history, since it was used by Thucydides in his explication of the foundation dates of the western Greek colonies (vi. 1-5).

Thus antiquity, in the sense of prehistory, is not one amorphous entity in Pausanias' view, but layered and structured; it is peopled with heroes but, crucially, with several generations of heroes, giving it a relative chronology, however remote and imprecise in absolute terms. Furthermore, it is clear that Pausanias was aware of the problem of early chronology and had given it much thought, perhaps most strikingly in the passage briefly cited above (p. 391): 'though I have investigated very carefully the dates of Hesiod and Homer, I do not want to state my results, knowing as I do the carping disposition of some people, especially of the professors of poetry at the present day' (ix. 30.2). Pausanias was an educated man, living in an age of textual critics, and of questions concerning the authenticity of Homer and Hesiod to which he could have contributed his own views if he had wished, as this passage makes clear. It is not surprising that his evident curiosity, and strongly held views, concerning the writers and figures of the remote past should spill over into his commentary on the artefacts of the remote past.

Thus far the discussion has been concerned with Pausanias' view of legendary figures and of the objects they made or were associated with. From legendary figures a short and readily available step takes us to legendary artists. As the examples given below indicate, works are often attributed to such artists; this is often another manifestation of that common desire for a pr tos heuret s, discussed above in the context of technical developments (p. 392). The most famous of these legendary figures wa Daidalos, an Athenian traditionally regarded by later generations as the first artist.

Pausanias' account of the life and travels of Daidalos is given in the context of his description of Samos: 'that this sanctuary is at all events one of the oldest in existence may be inferred especially from the image (agalma), for it is a work (ergon) of an Aiginetan, Smilis … This Smilis was a contemporary of Daidalos, though he did not equal him in renown' (vii. 4. 4). Pausanias mentions several works by Daidalos, and speaks of a work of Daidalos in the same context as the Trojan war (viii. 46. 2):

when Troy was taken and the Greeks were dividing the spoils, the xoanon of Zeus Herkeios was given to Sthenelos, son of Kapaneus. And many years afterwards, when the Dorians were migrating into Sicily, Antiphemos the founder of Gela sacked Omphake, a town of the Sikanians, and carried off to Gela an image (agalma) which had been made by Daidalos.

In Corinth, 'the sanctuary of Athena Chalinites is beside the theatre and near it is a naked xoanon of Herakles; they say it is a work of Daidalos. The works of Daidalos are somewhat uncouth (atopotera) to the eye, but there is a touch of the divine in them for all that' (ii. 4. 5). Habicht⁶⁵ says that the phrase 'a touch of the divine' (ti … entheon) shows that 'Pausanias has the discernment, despite the sculpture's lack of elegance and refinement, to recognize a kind of sublime inspiration and to value that'. This is, however, an understated interpretation; the phrase should be taken to indicate that the divinity of Daidalos' works comes primarily from their antiquity, of which their appearance is an expected manifestation. He uses a very similar phrase when he says that 'there is nothing on which the blessing of God rests in so full a measure as the rites of Eleusis and the Olympic games' (v. 10. 1). Although no reason for this opinion is given, the antiquity of the Mysteries and the games may safely be inferred to have been a significant reason (see further p. 407 below). While Pausanias expresses doubts over the attribution of this particular statue to Daidalos, he has no doubt that he has seen works of Daidalos; indeed, enough works to know his style. In fact, as is his practice with other sculptors, he does not list the criteria by which he attributes a work to Daidalos; however, he mentions that they are atopotera, and he often remarks that they are wooden (indeed, Pliny, NH vii. 198, claims that Daidalos invented woodworking). While the implications of atopotera are not made explicit, the word suggests compatibility with that simplicity noted above (p. 393) as being one of Pausanias' hallmarks of antiquity; the same is applicable to the chosen medium, wood (pp. 395-6 above).

Among the works of Daidalos to which Pausanias refers is one seen only by people consulting the oracle of Trophonios in the sacred wood at Levadeia: they look at 'the image (agalma) which they say Daidalos made (it is not shown by the priests except to such as are about to visit Trophonios)' (ix. 39. 8). Although not made explicit, it is a reasonable inference that the association with Daidalos, and thereby the antiquity of the statue, was important in the context of the ritual of a long-established oracle. Although Pausanias here expresses doubt over the attribution, he goes on to be more positive: 'of the works (erga) of Daidalos there are two in Boiotia, Herakles at Thebes and Trophonios at Lebadeia' (ix. 40. 2). He continues with a list of Daidalos' known works:

there are two other images (xoana) by him in Crete, a Britomartis at Olous and Athena at Knossos … At Delos there is a small xoanon of Aphrodite … instead of feet the lower end of the image is square. I am persuaded that Ariadne received this image (agalma) from Daidalos, and took it with her from home when she followed Theseus; and the Delians say that when Theseus was bereft of Ariadne, he dedicated the image (xoanon) of the goddess to Delian Apollo … I know no other extant works of Daidalos.

There is, then, no doubt for Pausanias of Daidalos' existence and the genuineness of some of his works, and this last example shows an explicit link between Daidalos and the mythical figures of Theseus and Ariadne. Pausanias is, however, sceptical to varying degrees about other works supposedly by Daidalos.⁶⁶

Another notable work of Daidalos which Pausanias saw was a folding stool on the Athenian Akropolis (i. 27. 1). This is particularly interesting because of the context:

in the temple of the Polias is a wooden Hermes, said to be an offering of Kekrops … among the ancient offerings (archaia) which are worthy of mention is a folding chair made by Daidalos and spoils taken from the Medes, including the corselet of Masistios, who commanded the cavalry at Plataia, and a sword said to be that of Mardonios.

Here Pausanias brackets as archaia a work by Daidalos and spoils from the Persian wars, much as he has previously bracketed Daidalos and Theseus and Ariadne. While the folding stool is by a legendary artist, the military spoils are within the historical period as we understand it and, perhaps more importantly, are relics of a conflict whose authenticity and date were beyond dispute (unlike the Trojan war). Furthermore, Pausanias had a firm enough idea of the date of the Persian wars (if only through reading Herodotos) to dismiss the idea that a statue by Alkamenes had been damaged then (i. 1. 5). The question this poses is whether he saw the period backwards from some time after the Persian wars as one entity. If so, this would argue against the position put forward above, where Pausanias appeared to be making such distinctions. Although for us Daidalos is a legendary figure, in Pausanias' 'defence', from his point of view, he saw a stool made by Daidalos as being no less real than the breastplate of Masistios and the sword of Mardonios. The reality of the object may have given credibility to the reality of the artist. This is equally applicable to the staff of Hephaistos at Chaironeia (p. 401 above).

Along with references to Daidalos, there are references to the next generation of artists—his pupils—most commonly Dipoinos and Skyllis (ii. 15. 1, where Pausanias also cites the tradition that they were sons of Daidalos; cf. Pliny, NH xxxvi. 9, dating them c.580). For example, Pausanias saw ebony statues by Dipoinos and Skyllis in the shrine of the Dioskouroi at Argos (ii. 22. 6; p. 396 above). Again, on the acropolis of Sparta he saw an image (agalma) of Zeus Hypatos (iii. 17. 6),

which is the oldest (palaiotaton) bronze image in existence. For it is not made in one piece but the parts have been hammered separately, then fitted to each other and fastened with nails to keep them together. They say the image (agalma) was made by Klearchos of Rhegion; some say that Klearchos was a pupil of Dipoinos and Skyllis, others say that he was a pupil of Daidalos himself.

This is of interest not only because of the supposed artistic relationship between Daidalos and later sculptors, but because it again shows Pausanias' awareness of technique, an awareness noted above primarily in connection with the simplicity of style he mentions on several occasions. In this case, he is clearly describing what modern scholars know as the 'sphyrelation' technique of hammering sheets of bronze onto a core.⁶⁷ This technique is indeed the earliest of bronze-working techniques, and Pausanias' identification of it as such is accurate. Less so is his assertion that this particular piece is 'the oldest bronze image in existence'; but it is again indicative of the desire to discover an identifiable beginning, or starting-point, for the genre of bronze statues, a variation on the theme of pr tos heuret s.

This interest is also reflected in Pausanias' statement that 'the first to fuse bronze were Theodoros and Rhoikos' (ix. 41. 1), echoed later: 'the two Samians, Rhoikos son of Philaos and Theodoros son of Telekles, were the first who discovered the art of founding bronze to perfection, and they were the first who cast it in a mould' (x. 38. 6). The latter reference arises in the context of the discussion of a bronze agalma on the akropolis at Amphissa 'which they say was brought by Thoas from Troy'. Pausanias adds 'they did not convince me', explaining that he knows of nothing in existence by Theodoros; but he sees no objection per se to the idea of the survival of a statue brought as booty from the Trojan war by a legendary hero, and manufactured by an ancient artist.

Just as Dipoinis and Skyllis were reputed to be pupils of Daidalos, so they in turn had pupils. Two Lakonian sculptors whose works Pausanias saw in the temple of Hera at Olympia are called pupil, and supposed pupil, of Dipoinos and Skyllis (v. 17. 2-3); a third Lakonian sculptor whose work was at Olympia is also called a pupil of Dipoinos and Skyllis (vi. 19. 4). It was noted above that there is, for the modern scholar, no credibility in the stories of Daidalos' life and works; it follows that there must also be comparable doubt over the veracity of his pupils, certainly as his pupils, or as real sculptors at all. It is not possible that Dipoinos and Skyllis (and others) were, in any real sense, pupils of Daidalos; whether the three Lakonian sculptors (and others) were pupils of Dipoinos and Skyllis is less clear. By the same logic, the probable accuracy of the reports of the relationship of each later generation to the next becomes greater. It is important to spell this sequence out, since it is from exactly this sort of reported artistic relationship that much of our sequence of sculptors (as distinct from the sequence of sculpture itself, which is assessed stylistically on the basis of surviving pieces) is derived. If the head of the sequence is as shaky as it is in the case of Daidalos, we may wonder how reliable the rest is. The key question here is, at what point does the legendary and mythical become real in Pausanias' eyes? He believes in the gods, and he believes that the god of craftsmen made objects, a natural assumption; it would, then, be hard for him not to believe that some of those works could survive to his day. With this belief, the logic leading to his ascription of the staff at Chaironeia to Hephaistos is entirely reasonable. But as a god, Hephaistos is in a different category from other artists, and indeed cannot be called an artist in the conventional sense. In dealing with real artists—that is, mortal men—different criteria are needed.

Clearly, Pausanias believed in the veracity of Daidalos and that he had seen works by him, enough to derive a firm idea of his style. It is for this reason, I suggest, that Pausanias sees the development of sculpture as one straightforward process punctuated by innovators like Daidalos, Dipoinos and Skyllis, Polykleitos, Kallimachos, and others. It is also for this reason that he sees no difference between the antiquity of works by Daidalos and spoils captured in the Persian wars; they are both at sufficient remove for him to be uncertain of the date, but they are bracketed because both are real. To follow the logic further is to overestimate what can reasonably be extracted from Pausanias; study of the history of art as such was of little interest during the periods to which most of the objects Pausanias saw belong. He is, to that extent, at the mercy of his sources, and can only improve on them when he is informed by an inscription, or when he is bold enough to venture a stylistic judgement, or an attribution of his own.

Pausanias' use of inscriptions has been well discussed by Habicht,⁶⁸ and it can profitably be further examined in this context. One example may serve to illustrate the value of inscriptions. In describing some statues at Olympia, Pausanias quotes some couplets on the pedestal, saying that they were 'in ancient letters' (v. 22. 3). Epigraphic study of the lettering indicates a date of c.475-50,⁶⁹ slightly later than the Persian spoils which were bracketed with Daidalos' folding stool in the passage discussed above (i. 27. 1). Epigraphy is a skilled art at the best of times, and levels of literacy in the Greek world suggest that the subtleties are unlikely to have been appreciated by contemporary viewers of the monument. The inscription on the stoa of the Athenians at Delphi has been cited as a reason for dating the stoa to the 470s, in conjunction with Pausanias' words (x. 11. 6).⁷⁰ But, as Walsh points out,⁷¹ adding the inscription in the latest up to date letter-forms would reduce considerably the accessibility of the inscription to the general public, especially to visitors from other parts of the Greek world, who would be used to Athenian inscriptions in the received and established letterforms. This is a major consideration, since consumption by outsiders was a central motivation for such identifying inscriptions, and, indeed, for the buildings themselves, particularly at an inter-state sanctuary of the importance of Delphi. Since, therefore, such reduction in accessibility would obviate the very point of the inscription, Walsh argues that the inscription is in fact not good evidence for the date. This indicates the uncertainty that can pertain to something even as apparently readily datable by modern scholars as letter forms. How much less comprehensible would the inscription have been to Pausanias? He says that 'the inscription seems to me to refer to Phormio … and his exploits', introducing a note of doubt and personal interpretation; unfortunately, it is not clear exactly where these doubts arise from. It may be that the letter-forms caused him doubts, or uncertainty about the details of the history of that period. His uncertainty, and his admission of it, reflects a consistent use of the same logic that led him to describe the folding stool of Daidalos and the spoils from the Persian wars simply as archaia. I do not think we can expect more from him than that.

A long answer has been attempted to the question of the point at which the mythical and legendary become real in our sources. In. summary, Pausanias saw no necessary division between these categories. If we are to attempt to see ancient art in something approaching the way it was seen by Pausanias, or more generally in the ancient world, we must remember that for us, it is easier to date an object because of the wider criteria available to us, and because of the more highly developed state of antiquarianism (whether we call it archaeology or art history). We are also far readier to assess an object without associating it with a name, an important distinction since it is by names, and consequently by genealogies, that the sequences of sculpture given by Pausanias and, more so, Pliny, are arranged. We do this, perhaps above all, with fourth-century sculpture, to a significant extent with that of the fifth century, rarely with that of the sixth, and not at all with that of the seventh century, or those few pieces of significant earlier sculpture.

Thus our own view of the development of sculpture illustrates a process in essence very like that employed by Pausanias, a process leading to a conclusion that is largely self-evident; the further back something is, the vaguer we become. Thus we can discourse precisely on the later material, and the earlier a piece is, the greater the tendency is for it to be regarded and referred to as, in general terms, 'ancient'. Furthermore, we too talk in terms of names when we can, as it avoids having to give too many inventory numbers, and gives a human dimension; thus one talks of a Pheidian, Skopaic, or Lysippan style. In this, too, we were anticipated by Pausanias.

Conclusion

It has been said that Pausanias 'has a strong bias towards the sacred and the antique, and in architecture, sculpture and painting towards the old masters'.⁷² This is undoubtedly correct, but it is a conclusion that must be inferred from the descriptions, since Pausanias nowhere makes explicit his vision of the past; but that is entirely consonant with the generally self-effacing nature of his narrative.… Yet I suggest that [this essay] is justified, not least because of his importance as a source, exaggerated though this has undoubtedly been by the accident of the survival of his work.⁷³ In the introduction to this article, the belief was stated that Pausanias had strong personal preferences and values in his attitudes to the objects and sites he was describing, and that they are reflected in the shades of presentation of the objects described in his narrative. The evidence adduced has, I believe, shown that Pausanias' attitudes are reflected in several aspects of his work: in his working method, above all his selectivity of which objects and buildings to describe; in his preference for the ancient over the modern; in his deeply held religious feelings and the consequent sense of the appropriateness of particular objects, not only to their task but also to their setting.

The role of religion in the present discussion was noted briefly above in relation to his evident interest in sanctuaries and in what constitutes a city. The importance of religion to Pausanias is manifest,⁷⁴ and is necessarily a significant factor in the assessment of the art, most of which was produced for religious contexts.

While he understands the Greek religious system, he is divorced from the heyday of the art he is describing, and could not experience that intimate connection between art and religion at many of the sites he visited. Exceptionally, however, Pausanias can show a sense of wonder in his comments, such as that on Eleusis and Olympia (p. 393 above), which seems divorced from the ideals of an objective description. Indeed, in the case of Eleusis we owe the lack of a description to this very sense of awe (i. 14, 3; 38. 7).⁷⁵ But this makes a point of some importance to this study, that we should not treat Pausanias' account as a coldly objective one: he did have opinions, feelings, and preferences, that are more often implicit than explicit in his work, and which justify a study such as this.

The aura he felt at Eleusis and Olympia strongly enough to commit it to writing shows that Pausanias was anything but an unthinking, undiscriminating, recorder; but it says something more relevant for us about his attitude to antiquities, since his work shows a linking of intrinsic sanctity with that bestowed by virtue of age (shown also in the comment on the statue of Daidalos, ii. 4. 5; p. 392 above). This was a long established principle, and one that Pausanias was certainly aware of when, for example, he tells of the later amassing and storing of relics of Greek epic, history, and religion in the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea (viii. 46. 1-47. 3). In the context of Augustus' looting, Pausanias tells us that Augustus took from the temple at Tegea the 'ancient image (agalma … archaion) of Alean Athena and the tusks of the Kalydonian boar'. But he adds that still in the temple in his day was 'the hide of the Kalydonian boar: it is rotting away with age and is now quite bare of bristles. Also, there are hung up the fetters which the Lakedaimonian prisoners wore when they dug the plain of Tegea, but some of the fetters have been eaten away by rust'. Similarly, Herodotos tells how these fetters, brought by the Spartans to bind the Tegeans they supposed they would capture, were in fact used on the defeated Spartans, and how in his day they hung round the Archaic temple (i. 66). While both these cases concern antiquities kept long after the event, there is a difference in display in that the relics of the boar hunt were kept inside the temple, while the military spoils were hung round the temple to maximize display. Between Herodotos' day and Pausanias', the fetters had apparently been brought inside the temple, but the fact of their survival for so long, and of their display apparently throughout that period, is of great interest. The Tegea fetters (at least in the intent of those who originally displayed them, if not those who maintained the display) exemplify the common phenomenon that history has to be justified by producing pieces of material evidence, whether they be the bones of a founder (such as Theseus at Athens, or Oresthes (Orestes) at Oresthasion/Megalopolis)⁷⁶ or 'the remains of the wood of the plane-tree which Homer mentions' (ix. 19. 5).⁷⁷ Specific objects are always easier to deal with, since something real and tangible which can readily be remembered and recalled when necessary is a more powerful factor than a theoretical concept of history or antiquity. But these specific objects also have to remain relevant, which is another reason why the fetters are of some interest, since they had a meaning as long as old inter-city rivalries persisted, as they did between Sparta and Messene until at least AD 77, and possibly until AD 177-8, Pausanias' own time.⁷⁸ That is, the fetters exemplify antiquity with a purpose, rather than simple antiquity per se.

Although Pausanias does not say so, it is legitimate to ask whether antiquities such as those in the temple at Tegea had become, in effect, icons for the local populace. This was an attitude Pausanias cannot have been unaware of in view of all his travelling, and the numerous occasions on which he seems to have consulted local opinion on the buildings or monuments of the particular area. In the light of all the evidence presented above, it is difficult not to conclude that he himself regarded antiquities as having a special place in the modern world, simply because they were antiquities. For him, the past was by no means readily comprehensible, but the attempt to fathom it was worthwhile. The attempt was made by acknowledging, and attempting to define, dividing lines between the firm and recent past and the dim, distant, and virtually timeless past. In the context of his social, political, and cultural background, Pausanias, as an educated native of Asia Minor in the second century AD, must be seen as a product of his time. This is apparent in the strong impression his writings give of his feel for the value, even sanctity, of antiquity and its manifestations in mainland Greece; indeed, the very essence of his work, the fact that he wrote it as he did, bears strongest witness to this. But that is to omit the personal element in his work, his judgements, and preferences; he frequently makes these clear, among them that he preferred the antique to the modern. And in that, as in much else, he is his own man.

Notes

¹ This article was begun during my tenure of a Sir James Knott Fellowship at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I thank Dr A. J. S. Spawforth and Professor G. B. Way well for their comments on earlier drafts. References to Pausanias are taken from the Teubner edn of M. H. Rocha-Pereira, vols. i-iii (2nd edn; Leipzig, 1989-90). Special abbreviations:

Frazer = J. G. Frazer, Pausanias's Description of Greece, i-vi (London, 1898). Unless otherwise specified, translations are from vol. i, with modifications.

Habicht = C. Habicht, Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece (California, 1985).

Pollitt = J. J. Pollitt, The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History and Terminology (Yale, 1974).

'Panhellenion I' = A. J. S. Spawforth and S. Walker, 'The world of the Panhellenion 1: Athens and Eleusis', JRS 75 (1985), 78-104.

'Panhellenion II' = A. J. S. Spawforth and S. Walker, 'The world of the Panhellenion II: three Dorian cities', JRS 76 (1986), 88-105.

² On art criticism and art history in antiquity in general, see Pollitt 9-84, including sections on Pliny (73-81), and Quintilian and Cicero (81-4). On Pliny see K. Jex-Blake and E. Sellers, The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art (London, 1896), introduction, esp. xiii-xiv, xlvi-ii. On Lucian see C. P. Jones, Culture and Society in Lucian (Harvard, 1986); J. Delz, Lukians Kenntniss der athenischen Antiquitaten (Freibourg, 1950), with reviews by J. H. Oliver, AJP 62 (1951), 216-19, and R. J. Hopper, CR 66 (1952), 47-8. Also n. 4 below.

³ Habicht 142.

⁴ On Douris and the tradition of art-criticism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, see Frazer i, pp. xxxiii-iv, lxxxii-xc; Pollitt 9-10, 60-6, 73-84.

⁵ A. M. Snodgrass, An Archaeology of Greece: The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline (California, 1987), 77.

⁶ 'Panhellenion I' and 'II'.

⁷ 'Panhellenion I', 104.

⁸ 'Panhellenion II', 104. The opposite view is hinted at by Snodgrass (n. 5), 76-7.

⁹ 'Panhellenion II', 93-4, on the interest in antiquarianism among Ephesians, Pergamenes, and Smymaeans.

¹⁰ Ibid. 104.

¹¹ Pollitt 10.

¹² Habicht xi-xii; cf. 165-75.

¹³ e.g. i. 5. 4, ii. 27. 5, iv. 31. 10, viii. 26. 7, ix. 2. 7.

¹⁴ e.g. x. 9. 2 at Delphi; v. 21. 1, vi. 1. 2 at Olympia; i. 39. 3 at Athens; iii. 11. 1 at Sparta; ii. 13. 3 at Phleious.

¹⁵ Habicht 134-5 and n. 74.

¹⁶ Pollitt 45.

¹⁷ vii. 5. 3-8. This is taken to refer to the late II B style by D. E. Strong, Roman Art (Harmondsworth, 1976), 94-6; F. L. Bastet and M. de Vos, Proposta per una classificazione del terzo stile Pompeiano (Gravenhage, 1979); P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Michigan, 1988), 279. It has also been suggested that the third style is being attacked (e.g. J. Liversidge, in M. Henig (ed.), A Handbook of Roman Art (Oxford, 1983), 101).

¹⁸ It is noteworthy that in defending the Nymphaeum, it is its practicality that Lucian stresses (Peregrinus, 19), and that he discusses it in order to attack Peregrinus rather than for its own sake. The passage is discussed by S. Walker, 'Roman nymphaea in the Greek world', in S. Macready and F. H. Thompson (eds.), Roman Architecture in the Greek World (London, 1987), 60-1; also by Jones (n. 2), 125. On Lucian's attitudes to past and present in general, see Jones, esp. 150-9.

¹⁹Select Passages from Ancient Writers Illustrative of the History of Greek Sculpture (London, 1895; rev. A. N. Oikonomides, Chicago, 1966), xxvi.

²⁰ The meaning of the phrase is discussed by Pollitt 27; on the art of this period see A. Stewart, Attika: Studies in Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (London, 1979), 3-64.

²¹ Habicht 176; the following owes much to his pp. 176-80.

²² Ibid. 10.

²³ Trophonios and Agamedes' most famous reputed work was the fourth temple of Apollo at Delphi in the first half of 6th cent. BC (x. 5. 13).

²⁴ On whose identity see Habicht 10.

²⁵ Ibid. 117-40, esp. 131-40.

²⁶ A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture (Yale, 1990), 39; R. E. Wycherley, Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture and Topography (Hesperia suppl. 20; 1982), 187.

²⁷ Examples include Aristotle's attributions of theatrical developments to Aeschylus, Sophocles, Epicharmus, Phormis, and Krates (Poetics 4, 5); see K. W. Arafat, 'Fact and artefact: texts and archaeology', Hermathena, 148 (1990), 63.

²⁸ Arist. Pol. ii. v. 1-5; vii. x. 4. J. R. McCredie, 'Hippodamos of Miletos', in D. G. Mitten, J. G. Pedley, and J. A. Scott (eds.), Studies Presented to G. M. A. Hanfmann (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 95-100; A. Burns, 'Hippodamus and the planned city', Historia, 25 (1976), 414-28; R. E. Wycherley, How the Greeks Built Cities (2nd edn; London, 1962) 15-35; id., 'Hippodamus and Rhodes', Historia, 13 (1964), 135-9; R. Martin, L'Urbanisme dans la Grece antique (2nd edn; Paris, 1974), 103-6; R. Garland, The Piraeus (London, 1987), 26-7, 181-2.

²⁹ There is a lacuna in the text here, and the word 'statue' is understood.

³⁰ Pollitt (142) wonders whether hapla means 'uncomplicated? primitive?'.

³¹ Pollitt (142) draws a pertinent parallel with the use of colour in painting.

³² Here and elsewhere, P. Levi (Penguin edn, 1971) translates argos as 'rough', W. H. S. Jones (Loeb edn) and LSJ as 'unwrought'. Pollitt does not discuss the word.

³³ L. T. Adams, Orientalizing Sculpture in Soft Limestone from Crete and Mainland Greece (BAR S42; Oxford, 1978). S. Adam, The Technique of Greek Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods (London, 1966).

³⁴ Parian: i. 14. 7; 43. 5; iv. 31. 6; ix. 20. 4. Pentelic: v. 10. 3 (exceptional in referring to tiles at Olympia); vii. 25. 9; 26. 3; viii. 30. 10; 47. 1; ix. 2. 7; 11. 2; 25. 3; x. 4. 3; 33. 2; 35. 10. All these are referred to as made of lithos, and most are statues by recognized masters (including Pheidias, Praxiteles, Damophon, Kephisodotos, Skopas). Lithos, therefore, is used here to denote marble; so too in the building inscription referring to the altar of Athena Nike on the Akropolis of Athens (ML 44, line 13). Paus. has no separate word for marble, although marmaros had been used by Homer (Il. xii. 380; Od. ix. 499), albeit not to mean marble. The word was apparently first used in this sense in the Hippokratic corpus (Mul. ii. 185) or by Theophrastus (Lap. ix. 69). The phrase marmaros lithos is used by Strabo (ix. 1. 23).

³⁵ White: i. 22. 4; ii. 20. 1; 24. 6; vii. 5. 9; 22. 6; viii. 37. 12; ix. 40. 2. These all refer to statues, except the first (the roof of the Propylaia) and the last (which is in relief) of lithos leukos; Frazer translates these all as 'marble', which, in view of the previous note, may be correct but cannot be claimed to be so with certainty. Black: x. 36. 3 (local Phokian stone used for a wall).

³⁶ It is a mark of the quality of the stucco covering on the temples at Olympia that Paus. did not remark on the very shelly nature of the marine conglomerate from which they are made.

³⁷ This is an apparent misunderstanding caused by the use of stucco over the stone: W. B. Dinsmoor, The architecture of ancient Greece (3rd edn; London, etc., 1950), 236. For the Philippeion, see F. Seiler, Die griechische Tholos (Mainz, 1986), 89-103.

³⁸ e.g. i. 20. 2; ii. 17. 4; 27. 2.

³⁹ e.g. vii. 23. 5; viii. 31. 6; ix. 4. 1.

⁴⁰ Dinsmoor (n. 37), 54, pointing out that the use of wood in this case is not attributable to the early date, since stone temples had been built by this time; J. J. Coulton suggests this is a matter of economics (Greek Architects at Work (London, 1977), 43). For present purposes, the important point is that the remaining wooden column would have been seen as particularly old by Paus.'s time, simply by virtue of its being wooden. The same may be applicable to the wooden decorations (metopes?) of the Epidamnian treasury at Olympia showing the exploits of Herakles (vi. 19. 8; corrupt passage). (The passage concerning the wooden column at Olympia is omitted from Levi's translation.)

⁴¹ e.g. i. 3. 5; 40. 3; ii. 19. 6; 31. 9; 32. 4; v. 26. 6; vi. 19. 6; 19. 8.…

⁴³ Donohue, Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture (Atlanta, Ga., 1988), 146.

⁴⁴ E. A. Gardner suggested (JHS 11 (1890), 133-4) that there were three occasions on which other writers used xoanon to indicate an object not made of wood (Xen. Anab. v. 3. 12; E. Tro. 1074; Str. ix. 1. 17 (396)). However, in the first case, the point is one of contrast between a wooden and a gold statue, rather than comparison of like objects. In the second, it is likely that an ideal and splendid vision of an imagined heroic past is being summoned up, complete with imagined golden xoana. In the third example, Strabo refers to the 5th-cent. marble cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous as a xoanon; this cannot be a mistake or misinterpretation, and I wonder whether it can be attributed to his not being a regular commentator on statuary, in contrast to Paus. with his practised use of vocabulary.

⁴⁵ There is also the added factor of the antiquity associated with Egypt (e.g. Hdt. ii), and the cachet of such an association.

⁴⁶ Since my primary concern is with Paus.'s references to wood, I am not here concerned with the belief expressed by Donohue (n. 42), 140, that Paus.'s use of the word xoanon was 'out of step' with that of his contemporaries because he used it to mean only wooden images of gods; this is disputed by A. Stewart in a review of Donohue, AJA 94 (1990), 158-9; note also the review by C. Sourvinou-Inwood, CR 40 (1990), 129-31.

⁴⁷ U. Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen (AM Beiheft 5, Berlin, 1976), 84-103.

⁴⁸ Apollodoros, Library, iii. 14. 1; Callim. Iambi, fr. 194. 66-8; Hekale, fr. 260. 24-6; K. W. Arafat, Classical Zeus: A Study in Art and Literature (Oxford, 1990), 156-9.

⁴⁹ Smallness was not a necessary feature of wooden statues (e.g. vii. 5. 9; Donohue (n. 42), 141).

⁵⁰ On the particular role of cult in the establishment of Argos' supremacy in the plain, see C. Morgan and T. Whitelaw, 'Pots and politics: ceramic evidence for the rise of the Argive state', AJA 95 (1991), 79-108.

⁵¹ vii. 4. 4-5; also DS iv. 77-9; Str. vi. 2. 6-7; Hdt. vii. 170. On the literary and archaeological evidence for the tradition surrounding Daidalos, see Arafat (n. 27), 52-3.

⁵² This is presumably the 5th-cent. sculptor of the Diskobolos, rather than the possible Hellenistic sculptor of the same name; see B. S. Ridgway, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, NJ, 1970), 84-6, 131.

⁵³ Pollitt 156.

⁵⁴ As Levi notes (Penguin edn, vol. ii, 248 n. 165), these references put him near either end of the 4th cent.; but this complication is not relevant here.

⁵⁵ e.g. E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora, 11: Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (Princeton, 1965); M. A. Zagdoun, La Sculpture archaisante dans l'art hell,6nistique (Paris, 1989).

⁵⁶ An athlete from Mende was also portrayed at Olympia with ancient jumping weights (v. 27. 12), but his date is unknown.

⁵⁷ Contemporary archaizing in architecture is discussed at 'Panhellenion II', 100-1, 104.

⁵⁸ J. R. Goody and I. Watt, 'The consequences of literacy', in J. R. Goody (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies (Cambridge, 1968), 27-68; F. D. Harvey, 'Literacy in the Athenian democracy', REG 79 (1966), 585-635; P. Cartledge, 'Literacy in the Spartan oligarchy', JHS 98 (1978), 25-37; J. R. Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge, 1977).

⁵⁹ W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia (Berlin, 1896), 723-8, no. 717. The inscription is dated to the 7th cent. by B. Fellman in E. Burck (ed.), 100 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabung in Olympia (Munich, 1972), 127, no. 117; to the early 6th cent. by Th. Karageorgia-Stathakopoulou in N. Yalouris (ed.), Athletics in Ancient Greece: Ancient Olympia and the Olympic Games (Athens, 1976), 255; to the mid-6th cent. by H. A. Harris, Sport in Greece and Rome (London, 1972), 142.

⁶⁰ G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi (London, etc., 1970).

⁶¹ Richter (n. 60), 77. B. S. Ridgway's view that the word andrias suggests 'a carved, most likely wooden, image' (The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1977), 18) is contradicted by the inscription on the base of a stone kouros from Delos, first quarter of 6th cent. (Richter 51-3, no. 15, figs. 87-90; LSAG² 292, 304, no. 10, pl. 55). Further, Ridgway's view would only be tenable in the case of Arrachion if his statue were wooden, in which case Paus. would almost certainly have said so. Levi translates andrias as 'portrait-statue', perhaps an acknowledgement of an unusual word (rather than agalma); the word is not in Pollitt's glossary, but Stewart (n. 20), 9, 38, and 109, discusses the use of the word in relation to Classical and Hellenistic sculpture. Paus. saw the identifying inscription, and may have thought the statue a literal portrait of Arrachion, a reasonable view of a contemporary representation of a still-living mortal. The andrias of Damaretos cited above (p. 397) may have been bronze, which would be the most natural medium in which to represent armour, including greaves; the verb o is used in connection with the statue, as it is with that of his grandson, leaving the question open. Levi's translation in the second instance, 'carved', is unjustified.

⁶² Pollitt 157.

⁶³ A.F. Stewart, 'The canon of Polykleitos: a question of evidence', JHS 98 (1978), 122-31.

⁶⁴ B. S. Ridgway, Roman Copies of Greek Sculpture: The Problem of the Originals (Michigan, 1984); M. Bieber, Ancient Copies: Contributions to the History of Greek and Roman Art (New York, 1977).

⁶⁵ Habicht 131.

⁶⁶ It is worth noting that Paus. here uses the words xoanon and agalma interchangeably, an indication that he does not see either as having strong chronological implications; this observation is applicable only to his discussion of the works of Daidalos, and the two words are by no means intended as general synonyms.

⁶⁷ C. C. Mattusch, Greek Bronze Statuary from the Beginning through the Fifth Century Century BC (Cornell, 1988), 41-4; C. Rolley, Greek Bronzes (London, 1986), 30; J. Papadopoulos, Xoana e sphyrelata: testimonianza delle fonti scritte (Rome, 1980), 75-100. Stewart (n. 26, p. 37 and fig. 17) aptly cites the sphyrelation statuettes from the temple of Apollo at Dreros (beginning of 7th cent.) as exemplifying the technique Paus. is describing.

⁶⁸ Habicht 64-94.

⁶⁹ J. Walsh, 'The date of the Athenian stoa at Delphi', AJA 90 (1986), 320 n. 2.

⁷⁰ Ibid. 320.

⁷¹ Ibid. 319-36.

⁷² H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, 14: The Agora of Athens (Princeton, NJ, 1972), 204; cf. Habicht 23, 'no recent artist is praised like the old masters'.

⁷³ Although whether in its entirety is another question; see Habicht 6-7.

⁷⁴ Habicht 151-9.

⁷⁵ A sense of wonder at Eleusis was long established: Pi. fr. 12 Bowra; S. fr. 837 Pearson; h. Cer. 480-2; and the prosperity and importance of Eleusis were at their height just after Paus.'s day with the building of, among other features, the greater Propylaia; see 'Panhellenion I', 101-3.

⁷⁶ Theseus: Plut. Thes. 36, Paus. iii. 3. 8. Orestes: Hdt. i. 67-8; Paus. iii. 3. 5-7; viii. 54. 4.

⁷⁷ Kept in the temple at Aulis in Boeotia; the passage of Homer referred to is R. Il. 305.

⁷⁸ P. Cartledge and A. J. S. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities (London, etc., 1989), 136-9.